The Resistance: Mission 1 (Leader beastcharizard)

Blackberry · Post Post #25 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:55 pm

In post 20, BBmolla wrote:Don't put Blackberry on any missions.

In post 23, BBmolla wrote:Put the most vocal three on the first mission imo

I retract to my previous post. Initially I liked bb not wanting me on the team because, quite frankly, I feel like my first post is very similar to how I've seen someone play before and I assumed they were scum. I was moreso overwhelmed by this game because of the number of players and scum that I didn't know how to approach it. But I feel we just need more discussion then we can start making assessments.

Molla's second comment is a dumb strategy. Scum want to be on missions and will sure as he'll be vocal about it. Putting players on just for being vocal is dumb.

Mitillos · Post Post #26 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:55 pm

In post 20, BBmolla wrote:Don't put Blackberry on any missions.

In post 23, BBmolla wrote:Put the most vocal three on the first mission imo

Contradiction. BBmolla is mafia, and needs to be lynched.

Damn, ninja'd.

Blackberry · Post Post #27 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:57 pm

(In case it seems odd that I double posted like that - I am posting on my phone. While driving. And overlooked his second message.)

Titus · Post Post #28 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:02 pm

I think y'all are rushing to that being a contradiction. Blackberry might not be the most vocal IMO. He is now, but he could have lurked. Who knows?

Vocal is a personality tell, nothing more.

I'd say let's scumhunt til Saturday and have Beast put up the towniest three. It will give us an idea about his thought processes.

Blackberry · Post Post #29 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:12 pm

Ummm I think Mit was saying it's a contradiction because he said not to put me on the mission when only 3 people had posted thus far.

Also I find it inconsistent that you are making arguments that "BB could have lurked" but then go on to say vocalness is dependent on personality and not alignment indicative. If that is your view why would you also bother to try arguing whether someone "could have" lurked. :S

Mitillos · Post Post #30 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:16 pm

I did mean that Blackberry had been vocal. It was a joke.

BBmolla · Post Post #31 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:52 pm

In post 25, Blackberry wrote:Molla's second comment is a dumb strategy. Scum want to be on missions and will sure as he'll be vocal about it. Putting players on just for being vocal is dumb.

I think reading more vocal players is easier than reading less vocal players.

And I don't need to be on the mission, idgaf

BBmolla · Post Post #32 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:52 pm

(And if a byproduct of me suggesting that is tons of people talk... is that really a bad thing?)

Blackberry · Post Post #33 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:21 pm

In post 32, BBmolla wrote:(And if a byproduct of me suggesting that is tons of people talk... is that really a bad thing?)

It's definitely a good thing. But as you just stated, that is a biproduct of your intention. If it were your intention that'd be awesome, but it's a biproduct of your intention...

Blackberry · Post Post #34 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:22 pm

In post 31, BBmolla wrote:
In post 25, Blackberry wrote:Molla's second comment is a dumb strategy. Scum want to be on missions and will sure as he'll be vocal about it. Putting players on just for being vocal is dumb.

I think reading more vocal players is easier than reading less vocal players.

And I don't need to be on the mission, idgaf

FTR, I didn't intend to convey that I don't want you on a mission, I just retracted my statement that I really wanted you on a mission. It was moreso I was putting you back into the null category moreso than putting you in a scum category.

Wisdom · Post Post #35 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:24 pm

so blackberry is town

BBmolla · Post Post #36 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:25 pm

In post 34, Blackberry wrote:
In post 31, BBmolla wrote:
In post 25, Blackberry wrote:Molla's second comment is a dumb strategy. Scum want to be on missions and will sure as he'll be vocal about it. Putting players on just for being vocal is dumb.

I think reading more vocal players is easier than reading less vocal players.

And I don't need to be on the mission, idgaf

FTR, I didn't intend to convey that I don't want you on a mission, I just retracted my statement that I really wanted you on a mission. It was moreso I was putting you back into the null category moreso than putting you in a scum category.

Why does suggesting a dumb strategy make me less town?

beastcharizard · Post Post #37 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:30 pm

I am putting myself on the team. That is going to be so we need to decide the other two.

I am thinking Blackberry and BBmolla now. People seem to think BB is scum or that Blackberry is scum, not entirely sure if this is right it is just what I am perceiving. With both on the team we can determine if one of them is scum.

Wisdom · Post Post #38 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:31 pm

i dont think anyone said they think that. Can you explain why you think that? Why not both town?

BBmolla · Post Post #39 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:31 pm

dislike the shit out of beast's post.

BBmolla · Post Post #40 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:32 pm

Can you put Wisdom instead of you BC?

Or another townread of yours

Mitillos · Post Post #41 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:32 pm

@Wisdom: Eh, Blackberry managed to appear 100% town whilst being scum before. Of course, that was because a townie had lied, screwing everything up. Yes, I'm still somewhat bitter about the "Plotting the Caper" game.

Wisdom · Post Post #42 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:32 pm

Also yeah, if beast is scum, he can just fail the mission and claim one of the BBs is scum.

BBmolla · Post Post #43 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:33 pm

In post 42, Wisdom wrote:Also yeah, if beast is scum, he can just fail the mission and claim one of the BBs is scum.

^yep

Wisdom · Post Post #44 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:34 pm

In post 40, BBmolla wrote:Can you put Wisdom instead of you BC?

wait, the leader doesn't need to be on the team?

Blackberry · Post Post #45 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:34 pm

In post 36, BBmolla wrote:
In post 34, Blackberry wrote:
In post 31, BBmolla wrote:
In post 25, Blackberry wrote:Molla's second comment is a dumb strategy. Scum want to be on missions and will sure as he'll be vocal about it. Putting players on just for being vocal is dumb.

I think reading more vocal players is easier than reading less vocal players.

And I don't need to be on the mission, idgaf

FTR, I didn't intend to convey that I don't want you on a mission, I just retracted my statement that I really wanted you on a mission. It was moreso I was putting you back into the null category moreso than putting you in a scum category.

Why does suggesting a dumb strategy make me less town?

This is a good question. I actually don't have an immediate answer. Thinking about it now, I had a jerk reaction of "this isn't an obvtown type of post" and it seemed more like something scum would say without considering the fact that it's a dumb strategy. That being said, I believe you to be a smart person so don't really think that'd be the case of a careless scum pushing their own agenda. It just didn't seem like an obvtown thing to do, or something that I would want to do or suggest.

Totally random question,

that is completely unrelated to the game

, but might as well start a discussion, is there a term for the fallacy when you assume people that act like you know you do when you're town are town and when you assume people acting like you do when you're scum are scum. I meant to ask this in another game but it seemed off topic and I didn't want it to look like I was distracting people from the main issue. But since this game is just beginning I'd figured it'd be a good place to ask it because I find myself doing it quite often (not always a bad thing, not always a good thing, but I tend to do it regardless).

Mitillos · Post Post #46 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:36 pm

@Blackberry: It's one of the transference fallacies. It assumes that the specific implies the general.

BBmolla · Post Post #47 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:37 pm

In post 44, Wisdom wrote:
In post 40, BBmolla wrote:Can you put Wisdom instead of you BC?

wait, the leader doesn't need to be on the team?

No. Unless inhouse rules of some sort are under play.

Blackberry · Post Post #48 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:41 pm

In post 38, Wisdom wrote:i dont think anyone said they think that. Can you explain why you think that? Why not both town?

In post 39, BBmolla wrote:dislike the shit out of beast's post.

Agree with both these. I don't think a lot of people think one or both of me/Molla is scum. I think the game has barely begun and I'd strongly prefer if we had more discussion before proposing any team? Granted, suggesting what you might propose will definitely grant more discussion ^_^.

In post 41, Mitillos wrote:@Wisdom: Eh, Blackberry managed to appear 100% town whilst being scum before. Of course, that was because a townie had lied, screwing everything up. Yes, I'm still somewhat bitter about the "Plotting the Caper" game.

I will admit, that was probably one of my greatest successes as scum on forum. Quite frankly, I am lazy as scum and don't have the energy to fake scum-hunting, which wasn't required at ALL in that game, which is probably why I was able to pull it off.

I might as well mention this now since I'm sure people (*cough*Titus*cough*) will bring it up anyways that she hates my posts. I like to just post all my thoughts and I do realize sometimes I'll probably be rambling. I'm of the opinion scum can't fake the GENUINESS that town bring to the table, and thus, if I post my raw thoughts as they come to me it's more likely the town can see that I am in fact town.

Aronis · Post Post #49 (ISO) » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:43 pm